Archive

Monthly Archives: September 2011

TechBurst Competition 2011

Share what you know…

TechBurst

: ( noun ‘tek’berst ) a short, sharable video that explains a single topic or concept in a particularly entertaining and compelling way. The best TechBursts are viewed thousands of times.

TechBurst Competition 2011

:help to populate the TechBurst library and to recognize the most creative Yellow Jacket mentors. If you worked hard to understand a difficult concept and have a novel way of explaining it to your classmates, share what you know in the 2011 TechBurst Competition. Participants will produce their own videos and leave them behind for future Yellow Jackets. The best videos will be viral Internet hits. Winners will receive $5,000 in cash prizes and gifts.

The Rules of TechBursts

:there are only four rules of TechBursts

  1. They are short (no more than 10 minutes)
  2. They are creative (nobody will watch boring TechBursts)
  3. They are self-contained (your classmates will put them together in unpredictable ways)
  4. They are meant to be shared (you are leaving a legacy to make life a little better for those who follow

Where to Find Examples of TechBursts

:there are no TechBursts today. Soon there will be hundreds of them, and yours will be the examples that other students use. For examples of bursts that people in other parts of the world are creating, try visiting Kahn Academy (http://khanacademy.org) or The RSA (http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/videos/).

How to Create TechBursts

:you will probably invent your own approach to creating TechBursts. Technology is important, but you can get started with simple tools that are freely available on the web (see http://www.labnol.org/internet/khan-academy-style-videos/19875/).

Eligibility

:current Georgia Tech undergraduate or graduate students can enter individually or in teams. A student can be a part of as many individual or team submissions as he or she wants.

Expressing Interest, Intent to Compete & Registration

:individual students and student teams must complete one TechBurst Topic Registration Form per submission. These forms can be completed between October 1 and October 30, 2011.

Register here

How the Competition Works

:semi-finalists will be selected on the basis of creativity and clarity. Semifinalists will submit rough videos to a panel of judges who will select a group of finalists. Finalist videos will be uploaded to a TechBurst YouTube channel for the world to see. Winning videos will be determined by combining crowd sourced reviews and ratings with the reviews of an expert panel. Winners will be announced at the 2012 C21U Presidential Forum.

Production Assistance

:individuals and teams are free to use any technology at their disposal to produce their TechBurst video. In fact, the more creative, the better. Finalists will have access to the Georgia Tech’s Distance Learning and Professional Education studios and facilities. If you think you will need access to production assistance please indicate on the registration form. The Georgia Tech Library also has facilities that are open to all students that may be helpful.

Prizes:

  • $2,500 – First Place
  • $1,000 – Second Place
  • $500   – Third Place
  • $1,000 – People’s Choice Award for Innovation
  • * prizes divided up equally to members of ad hoc teams

#change11

C21U Director Rich DeMillo invites you to join Georgia Tech President Bud Peterson, Vice President for Research Steve Cross, Dean Zvi Galil, Jonathan Cole (former Columbia University provost and author of The Great American University), and a panel of educational innovators for the launch of The Center for 21st Century Universities (C21U). Learn how you can participate in C21U, Georgia Tech’s living laboratory for fundamental change in higher education.

This event is a chance for anyone with an interest in higher education to hear a steller cast of leaders from industry and academia share their ideas about the future of higher education and the disruptions in store for American universities.

Events kick off in the atrium of Tech’s  new Wayne G. Clough Building at 5p.m. on Monday September 26 with a networking mixer that features posters presenting projects in innovative educational technology and a student led panel discussing the future of higher education from the student perspective.  This is a drop-in event, so please feel free to come by, chat with Jonathan Cole, and see what C21U is all about.

The formal launch program begins at 8a.m. on Tuesday September 27 in the Georgia Tech Global Learning Center.

8:00-9:00 a.m. Continental breakfast

9-9:15 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks

9:15-10:00 a.m. Keynote Address:  Jonathan Cole

10:00-10:30 a.m. Announcement of C21U programs for 2012

10:45a.m. -12:30 p.m.   All-Star Panel Discussion, Q&A,

Moderator: Jeffrey J. Selingo, Editor, The Chronicle of Higher Education
Panel:

  • Devin Fidler, Institute for the Future
  • Alan Kay, President, Viewpoints Research Institute
  • Roger Schank, Executive Director and founder of Engines for Education, Inc. and Chairman and CEO of Socratic Arts, Inc.
  • Lynne Weisenbach , Vice Chancellor, Educator Preparation, University System of Georgia
  • Stephen E. Cross, Executive Vice President for Research, Georgia Institute of Technology

12:30-12:50 p.m. Announcement of 2012 Presidential Forum and Closing Remarks by President Peterson and Rich DeMillo

RSVP to Mary Clair Thompson to reserve your seat

#change11

Last year, I posted a cautionary article about the danger of letting opponents define you. If you thought I was overwrought when I suggested that “Picking Daisies” — the campaign ad that in all likelihood sunk Barry Goldwater’s presidential ambitions–had anything to do with public support for higher education, let me encourage you to spend the next hour watching this little number. It is called “College Conspiracy,” and it has one message: “College education is the biggest scam in US history,” I have made it easy for you. Just click play.

If you doubt that political warfare is being waged and that its aim is to provoke rage– to undermine public support for colleges and universities–just sit back as the ominous music leads you to the inevitable conclusion:

There is no reason that we the taxpayer should be funding college education.

It’s available on dozens of video sharing sites, including YouTube, which reports over two million views.  That number is an order of magnitude larger than the number of copies of all books about how to improve higher education published in the last decade. Two million enraged viewers is enough to sway votes. It’s enough to pressure legislators. It is a large number.

There are close-ups of distraught faces and stories of foul greed:

Education ruined my life!

The camera shifts to the sympathetic interviewer:

They’re just vultures.

A clearly knowledgeable and steely-eyed commentator says that you don’t need a college degree to be successful and that the escalating costs of getting one is a harbinger of  hyperinflation.

The narrator, with charts and graphs, argues that, like semiconductors, prices should actually be going down.  For-profit colleges and traditional institutions are all painted with the same brush. They defraud students who, in exchange for exorbitant fees, end up with a worthless piece of paper that qualifies them for exactly the same low-paying jobs that high school graduates hold. Despite the Georgetown data showing that we have too few universities, steely-eyed commentator says that we have far too many.

You can pack a lot of disinformation into an hour. It took just thirty seconds to sink Goldwater. The problem is that “College Conspiracy” intermingles facts with distortions and tortured logic.

  • Student debt now exceeds credit card debt: true
  • Institutions engage in reckless capital spending that impresses prospects but adds nothing to the value of an education: true
  • Multimillion dollar packages to coaches and an emphasis on the entertainment value of intercollegiate sports distorts and corrupts academic missions: true
  • Tuition has risen at twice the rate of healthcare costs and the public does not know why: true
  • Learning outcomes and completion rates have gotten worse: true
  • Grade inflation has devalued diplomas: true
  • Students are not told that their degrees do not entitle them to a high-paying job: true

What nobody is told, for example, is that universities like the University of Chicago have reconstructed their approach to college football to make sure that it supports the academic mission. Or that a college education can be worth a lot to a student who studies at the right school and majors in the right subject.  It doesn’t matter. Two million times, a story with elements of truth beat like a drum the message that higher education is not worthy of public support. What do we say?

Here is how I answered that question last year:

How do American universities respond? Meekly. As reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education, university leadership has been slow to recognize the direction and force of prevailing winds.  A common mistake in business and politics is to focus on the feel-good stuff that is ultimately valueless, and universities are making the same mistake.  The Chronicle reports that former MIT vice president John Curry told a gathering of heads of public universities to stop clinging to “worn out myths about campus strengths.” Curry told the group, “We like our stories more than the truth.” That leaves a vacuum for others to tell their versions of the truth.  It was devastating to Goldwater and it will be devastating to higher education.

Facing the truth is an important part of focusing on the value of a university education, and Gerard Adams–the force behind “College Conspiracy”–knows that.  He is the sympathetic interviewer.  He is also president of the National Inflation Association (NIA), which produces not only “College Conspiracy” but other doomsday videos predicting hyper-inflationary consequences of monetary policy, healthcare reform, and food prices. What NIA is really all about is promoted prominently on their website:

Our goal is to help as many Americans as possible become aware of the disaster we are rapidly approaching. In our opinion, the wealth of most Americans could get wiped out during the next decade, but it will be an opportunity for a small percentage of Americans to become wealthy by investing into companies that historically have prospered in an inflationary environment, such as Gold and Silver miners and Agriculture producers.

NIA is a fringe group,and their activities are under scrutiny.  But two millions viewers is a lot of viewers. Add to Gerard Adams conservative economists like Richard Vedder, who says through his organization Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CACP):

The pell-mell investment in sheepskins is beginning to look an awful lot like something our economy has seen in real estate: a debt-fueled asset bubble. It might end just as badly.

CACP has a message that is capable of reaching mainstream Americans. On the September 16, 2011 edition of the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Richard Vedder’s voice was the one that reached 7 million viewers. He said college was “less good” as an investment. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “College kids can’t find jobs and that could lead to riots in the streets.” And then there was an anonymous student who said to all of Brian Williams’ 7 million viewers: “College is a scam.”

Add the NIA audience to the NBC audience and you get roughly 10 million viewers. “Picking Daisies” was watched by an audience of 50 million. The Republican response was to complain about the fairness of the ads, but a week after the ad aired, a Harris poll found that half of all Americans believed that Barry Goldwater would involve the US in a nuclear war. What will be the response of higher education to “College Conspiracy”?

Others will define you if you don’t define yourself.

#change11

Here the reasoning behind one of my criticisms of higher education: the factory model — a model that is in near-complete collapse — was imposed upon universities at the turn of the 20th Century by well-meaning industrialists who simply wanted to establish some discipline on the chaos that reigned in those days. Their charges jumped on half-developed industrial engineering theories and folded them into public policy, and that is the legacy we cope with today in the form of bloated bureaucracies, an over-reliance on measuring inputs, ineffective testing, and a largely parasitic accreditation industry.

Now we have a new generation of tinkerers who hear that costs are out of control and want to automate the hell out of college teaching instead of focusing on spending the money more wisely. Let me give you a preview of one of my conclusions: it’s not that we cannot afford to teach undergraduates the old way, it’s rather that everything from intercollegiate athletics to debt-laden performing arts centers grabs budget dollars before they get to the classroom. The main financial threat to American colleges and universities is mission creep, not a lack of robot-teachers.

That’s why I was particularly intrigued by Audrey Waters’  critique of Khan Academy that appeared in Explainer. I am a fan of Khan and especially his content — in fact, we are launching a program called TechBursts at Georgia Tech’s Center for 21st Century Universities to experiment with how to deconstruct a mature curriculum along those lines — but like Waters I am somewhat alarmed that there is such a rush to declare Khan Version 1.0 such an unqualified success.

It’s not that I am swayed by the “Yes but conducting a hands-on experiment is so much better than Sal Khan’s explanation of force…” argument. Indeed, deliberately taking the laboratory out of an introductory physics course does not seem like a good idea, but Khan does not advocate that either.  Classroom inversion would in fact allow more time for mentoring in a more interactive laboratory setting.

It’s rather that I have not seen a cogent analysis of these critiques:

  • Technology replacing teachers: OK, it’s not a good idea, but in the all-or-nothing world of transforming higher education there’s no such thing as just a little automation.  The zealots want it all.
  • The Bill Gates connection: The Gates Foundation and Bill’s personal commitment to reform has been a welcome entry to higher education.  It certainly helped breathe life and excitement into a field that had become dominated by bureaucrats and backward-looking analysts. But the criticism that Gates will morph into a new Andrew Carnegie set of heavy-handed approaches is worthy of closer examination
  • Old Wine, New Bottles: I don’t know if Khan Academy is bad pedagogy (Although I suspect that it is not since it seems to me to be pedagogically agnostic) but applying a layer of 21st Century Technology to a 19th Century curriculum does not sound at first blush like a good way to start the transformation process.
  • Learning or Leveling Up: Waters outlines a critique of gameification and somewhat unfairly says that the major criticism is that it puts the emphasis on earning badges rather than learning.  But so does the inflation-ridden practice of  traditional grading. On the other hand, there is a rush to Web 2.0 platforms that is not informed by even a sliver of experience in actual college settings.
  • Part of a Larger Trend: This is the most worrisome critique.  There are severe problems in higher education, but quick fixes that nibble at the edges probably just make things worse.  At best, they divert attention and resources from more severe  problems. At worst, they promote change for its own sake, and that is never a good idea.

It’s unlikely that the first generation knowledge bursts that Salman Khan assembled on a shoestring are the salvation of higher education.  They are Version 1.0 of a technology that has not even been thoroughly wrung out yet. It’s great that Bill Gates is a backer,  but does anyone remember Windows 1.0? It took Microsoft three versions just to get it working.

#change11